Or buy expensive foils from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by quicksilver
Printable View
Or buy expensive foils from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by quicksilver
@ Jack
That was a really good letter that you sent off. I hope the right person gets around to reading it. It has a far more objective tone than most of the letters that they will be receiving, I'd wager.
Edit: I am really not liking how advantageous things are becoming for defending players. I suppose that from a tactical sort of standpoint, the defenders should have an advantage though, but I would prefer things to be equal.
things were always advantageous for the defender. Your not the one who committed to a set course, your the one who gets to make choices. How to block, with what, with how many, skip it and take advantage of their critters being tapped, etc. Note that Sakura tribe elder is basically just as good (fogs a guy, does his trick. Dipships attacking into it with bob or savanna lions not withstanding) Mogg gets the shaft. But the defender has always had more options. that's not new. this change mostly affects limited, which sucks, cause limited is the other "good format." (i.e. format I like. I am really liking the cards in M10 though, and may play some standard.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordel
Sanctioned multiplayer seems interesting. Good luck drafting those floor rules.
Me saying "HOW advantageous" implies that it is increasing. That does not mean advantage did not exist before.
What? Why should the attacking player not be flooded in tactical disadvantages? In fact, I even have reasons that the tactical advantage should go to the defending player. Not unboundedly, but this hasn't even started to flirt with the boundary. I wouldn't even consider attacking to be a terribly repulsive thing to do when the board is fairly even, let alone when the attacking player has greater board presence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordel
But making attacking tougher gives the lagging player a better chance to recover from a (more often than not) losing position. If that player got unlucky (drew fewer creatures, not enough land...) he has a greater chance to even it up. Now, we don't want to live in communist land where everybody can play an extremely inconsistent deck and never be punished. (As would be the case if aggro were still viable though attacking so repulsive that it was never done, or in the extreme case, not allowed.) There actually wasn't enough of an advantage for the defender, apparently, since it was extremely tough to come back after say even a 2-3 turn mana screw, and I definitely think an aggro/(aggro/control) deck should be able to recover from 2-3 turns of having 1 fewer land than desired.
I disagree. Mostly because it yet again gives the worse player time to steal a win when he/she can defend longer after misplays. Granted bad luck happens. But far more often having a deck that is inconsistent is passed off as bad luck. And this new change gives defending so much more advantage that I can see aggro very easily getting wrecked and letting control proceed to rule uncontested. Which is bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by pi4meterftw
Pass. I'd prefer a semblance of pairity. Just because someone is swinging doesn't mean they have an advantage all the time. So many exceptions exist to that line of thinking("attackers clearly have the advantage by sheer virtue of their role as aggressor" WTF?), that I'll assume you didn't really think about it too much.
Example: a WW deck with an ACC of less than two or something has mulled and managed to dump it's hand on turn two, with three mana sources in play(mox being one) and is swinging because that is what WW does and is facing a more of a mid-range-type deck, which is on the draw, has similar mana available, but with more cards in it's hand, as well as a number of outs versus a swarm of dudes(mass removal, bigger guys etc etc). Who has the advantage? When you consider the earliness of the game, options and the fact that the aggro deck is already making plays off of the top, while the mid range deck still has a hand of five variables, where the fuck is the advantage for aggro? Somewhere between short-lived and reliant on luck.
Maybe that isn't an incredible example, but there are plenty of others anyone that has played MtG for even a small amount of time can allude to from their own experience when attacking does not always suggest advantage.
no damage on the stack will just kill a lot of the fun in the game. join us and fight for what you believe is right!
www.pro-dots.com
I hope they don't get around to reading any good letters. I hope they read shitstorm letters until their heads burst from the sheer acidity of the emails they receive. I told them to get fucked. I've gotten further and further from the game as the years have gone by and they've pulled dumb move after dumb move. The changes to the combat step are the last straw. I've got better things to do with my time. I'm out. To the people I've enjoyed talking to and playing with over the years, guys like Scrumm and Slay and Jaco and Nick (whatever he was using for a screen name, I can't remember) and to the guys I met in Chicago, best wishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordel
i singed pro dots but what ticks me off almost more then DOTS is not being able to distribute the damage how i want EXCEPT death touch srsly WTF? :rolleyes:
I dont remember who explained that a few pages back but it didnt make sense to me either at first. Then I thought about what they had said. In order go to go onto the next assigned blocker, lethal damage must be dealt. Normally thats damage equal to toughness but with death touch, its only 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by memnarch
It doesnt really change anything if you think about it. Your still dealing lethal damage before you move onto the next blocker. Its not like you can split damage up with deathtouch to make pyroblast kill a bunch of stuff.
The only place it gets a little iffy is how it now works with trample. Thankfully they cleared up the snafu'd annoucement, but it still seems like a bit of a grey area.
Im not gonna lie, originally I saw this as a shit rule change, but over the past few days of mulling it over, my mind is kind of swaying. Now dont get me wrong, I do feel this kind of change is something they maybe should have shot out some feelers for first, a poll here or there. But I played back in the days before the stack and from what I remember of those times, it wasnt bad. Granted, a lot of good decks get hosed, but overall I think it will be a good change. This coming from someone who uses Pridemage's, Fanatics, and Affinity combat jank frequently. It will just take a little getting used to.
The issue with the seperation of Exile and Sideboard is decent, but it also creates an annoyance where that "zone" could've been used for more wish-like effects had it remained wide open. Black summonsing Cthlulluu type pacts from outside of the "world," white for divine intervention, blue for pure imagination made manifest reality, life and the whole butterfly effect stuff, and red with the whole volcanic activity mystery stuff.
White and Red probably could have had some interactions with recruitment and the whole "silent volcano goes boom" motiffe.
The multiplayer thing is one of the few tournament bits that needs to be placed and hoisted up. The whole decentralization of strategy in the context of removing the stack takes away from mechanics, rather than adds.
I think what's honestly hurting the younger demographic is three fold:
1. Pokemon and Yu Gi Oh
-Kids get "used to" certain rules, so WoTC has tried to shoe horn in some of these mechanics like the new damage rules.
-In schools to get rid of the whining about "he stolz meh pokemanz cardz" sniveling from rugrats that don't know how to watch their property in schools, they globally banned them. It was in the news a lot whenever Pokemon was big, and I remember some of the local kids bitching they couldn't play MtG or poker anymore.
2. Expense, older the game gets more expensive it is.
3. Singles for type 2 are outrageous, $30 for a hot card is normal but not healthy. I remember when a foil went for this much, I know free trade and all, but it still hurts kids that use their milk money to buy cards.
Price and the inability to play in certain schools drives down the whole generational thing, coupled with newer CCG's. They're trying to make the game hip, but it's not going to have that effect until you can have more than a handful of top decks and especially some that aren't made out of rares.
Less functional jank like Chimney Imps or marginal cards with overcost new abilities like Unearth for 8, and a certain level of power curve of Time Spiral or Lorwyn where shit actually did something useful.
Don't think of it as a special exception for the attack step; think of it as a special for death touch, which is perfectly natural since every keyword is its own special exception. Just say that death touch now reads: This creature has special powers in the attack step. In fact, you can even see it as more natural than that! Just define lethal damage to adjust for death touch.Quote:
Originally Posted by memnarch
1. Yep, but there is no way the will drop their CCG's for Magic. I remember when i was in the 2nd grade or so, Pokemon was damn fun to play, you basically didn't have to think, just play, at this time i wouldn't have thought about playing something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Morgan
2+3. Yep, but since WotC wants to sell some cards thats not gonna change.
They arn't going to take the shitstorm letters seriously. They are just going to laugh at them and ignore them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeyMikey
Assuming these kids are trying to build Dark Bant it hurts. But if they just want to play, than it's neither here nor there. I was sitting at the shop a few months ago, and one of the regular high school kids opens a few packs at the table next to me. He rips and Espeth, which he knew I wanted, and I was able to basically finish a deck for him in trade. He beats "good"players with it too, he's all Rain of Tears, Fulminator Mage, beat beat beat. (leaving people like WFT? gtfo NooB! Gawd!) So it cuts both ways. They have the same chance to pull a card out of a given pack as anyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Morgan
I typically do not get involved in such volatile discussions, but I feel there is a side to this story that is severely underrepresented in this thread and elsewhere.
First, I encourage all those who have not already done so to read Sean McKeown's article on Star City Games, dated 6/12/2009. Regardless of whether you agree with his assessment, note his perspective. Those of us who picked up the game back in 1994 and have remained faithful to this very day remember more rules changes, B & R list modifications, and counterintuitive situations than most players today have ever seen.
The notion of playing for ante, interrupts, tapped blockers dealing no damage, or the presence of Hurkyl's Recall on the B & R list are just a few examples of changed facets of the game that I remember quite vividly. I certainly do not expect many current players to wax nostalgic upon days they never experienced, but I do believe Magic history (I am an archivist after all) does serve a useful purpose.
For those who feel strongly that sixth edition rules have been up-ended, I encourage you to think about what combat, and Magic in general, may have been like in days prior. Back then we all "cast" spells and gameplay was a bit more flavorful and imprecise. The recent changes are just another in a long line of attempts to address the complex nexus between flavor, intuition, precision, learning curve, sound business strategy, and other elements that are intrinsic to game design and promotion. If Wizards does not periodically reassess these product relationships, they are quite honestly not doing their job.
Without question, the changes to combat structure are dramatic. A strategic element has been lost. I've played constructed and limited for many years, so believe me, I came to appreciate the nuances of damage-on-the-stack as well. Yet this is hardly a reason to cry "noob" at Wizards, pawn your collection, or blanket forums with inflammatory language (and seriously, clean it up, people).
As members of the Legacy community, let us show some maturity with these changes. One of the things essential to being a historian is the development of a broader framework for interpreting events. I hope that perhaps this post will contribute to this discussion by articulating that perspective.
Deathtouch's rules text just shows how bad new damage assignment is.
"Deathtouch (Pretend you're using the old rules so that this card works)"
This passage from the article made me ease into my chair regarding the M10 changes. Anyone who has studied Logic, symbolic visual systems, semiotics (i.e. the study of how we know what we know, more or less), or any type of design (industrial, graphic, computer) should understand that when your system explains itself, you should work with that. This is one of the reasons I stay involved with magic. It illustrates very complicated principals, and "average joes" get it, and expound on it. I read articals by people like Adrian Sullivan who "only" have undergraduate degrees, (like The Big Lie of "Good" Cards) and I pick out 100 things which are relevant to my field, and I start wondering, how do I translate this principal of understanding for my colleagues? Many of my peers see Magic as my "Hobie," But I have come to think of it really as cross training for other intellectual activities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magical Hack - Surviving The End Of The World,
Sean McKeown
No, assign lethal damage (=1 under deathtouch) and go on to the next creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun_Ra
That's what's behind it.